Fenestrated endovascular repair with large device diameters (34- to 36-mm) is associated with type 1 and 3 endoleak and reintervention. Annals of vascular surgery Deslarzes-Dubuis, C., Stern, J. R., Tran, K., Colvard, B., Lee, J. T. 2021


OBJECTIVES: Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing EVAR with larger device diameters (34- to 36-mm) have worse outcomes due to proximal fixation failure and need for reintervention. We examine outcomes relating to standard fenestrated repair (FEVAR) with larger device diameters, and investigate whether a similar relationship exists.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained, single institution database of patients treated with the Cook ZFEN device between 2012-2017. Outcomes were stratified by device diameter into normal-diameter (ND,= 32 mm) and large-diameter (LD,34-36 mm). Primary endpoints were need for reintervention and composite type I/III endoleak.RESULTS: 100 consecutive patients treated were identified for inclusion. Overall mean age was 73.6 years and mean aortic diameter was 59.1 mm. Mean follow-up was 22 months. A total of 26 (26%) patients were treated with LD devices. Number of target vessels per patient was 2.8 in both groups. Infrarenal neck length and diameter were significantly different in the LD and ND patients, respectively (2.6 mm vs 4.7 mm (P<.01) and 30.1 mm vs 23.4 mm (P<.01)). Percent graft oversizing was lower in the LD cohort (19% vs 24%; P=.006). No difference was seen in overall mortality at 30-days (0% vs 2%; P=.4) or at latest follow up (6% vs 14%; P=.6). Reinterventions were not significantly different at 30 days, but were significantly higher over the follow-up period in the LD cohort (46.2 vs. 17.6%; P=.002). LD diameter was associated with reintervention on univariate (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.37), but not multivariate analysis. The composite endpoint of type I/III endoleak was higher in the LD cohort (15.4% vs. 2.7%; P=.004).CONCLUSION: FEVAR requiring 34- or 36-mm device diameters is associated with an increased risk of composite type I/III endoleak and reintervention. Patients undergoing fenestrated repair requiring LD devices should be closely monitored, with consideration for proximal or open repair.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.07.055

View details for PubMedID 34656711